hmc_set_pcm_preferences

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains partial-update semantics, the implicit side effect of enabling aggregation, prerequisites for aggregated metrics, the return format, and the ValueError when no flags are supplied. This is strong coverage, though it omits potential details like permissions or other error cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well organized and front-loaded with purpose, followed by parameter roles, behavioral notes, return value, and exception. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise yet covers the essential aspects.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is moderately complex with 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers partial updates, implicit dependencies, prerequisites, return format, and an exception. It does not explicitly contrast with hmc_get_pcm_preferences or detail all optional flags, but overall it provides enough context for correct use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'category' and 'resource_name_or_uuid' well, and notes that only supplied flags are changed. However, it fails to define the five optional flags individually (aggregation, compute_ltm, energy_monitor, long_term_monitor, short_term_monitor), leaving their specific meanings ambiguous. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Enable/disable PCM data collection for a resource', which is a specific verb plus resource and clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from the sibling hmc_get_pcm_preferences by focusing on modification rather than retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides useful context on when and how to use the tool: 'Only the flags you set are changed' and 'Turning on aggregation implicitly enables long-term monitoring' plus the requirement for long-term + aggregation before processed/aggregated metrics are available. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.